Jon the Hat Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 Bates talking crap again. I'm sure if he is soooo keen to pay all the small creditors they will accept money over and above the 1p in the pound agreed. What an idiot.
Phube Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 My wife's company is one of the small creditors (~£30,000). And to their credit they voted againt Ken's 1p. And now it's going to court to see whther it's a legal offer or not as 24.8% of the creditors were most unhappy with the arrangements!!
Daggers Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 My wife's company is one of the small creditors (~£30,000). And to their credit they voted againt Ken's 1p. And now it's going to court to see whther it's a legal offer or not as 24.8% of the creditors were most unhappy with the arrangements!! Seeing as he just needed 75%, and got it, it seems as though she's throwing good money after bad.
Blue Bob Posted 7 June 2007 Posted 7 June 2007 Seeing as he just needed 75%, and got it, it seems as though she's throwing good money after bad. I don't get how 75% can be happy with 1p in the pound. There seem to be a number of different groups who want to buy the club so why not hold on a bit longer?
Mack Posted 7 June 2007 Posted 7 June 2007 How much did Bates get for Chelsea from Abramovich? £18 million if my memory serves me right. Yet there he is at Leeds not putting in a single penny of his own money while the club goes down the drain over and over again. Nice bloke......
davieG Posted 7 June 2007 Posted 7 June 2007 I don't get how 75% can be happy with 1p in the pound. There seem to be a number of different groups who want to buy the club so why not hold on a bit longer? I believe a very large proportion of that 75% was Bates himself, so in effect he was voting to not pay himself in exchange for owning Leeds All sounds very dodgy business practice to me but that's the way it is these days business rules and global business dominates most governments.
breadandcheese Posted 7 June 2007 Posted 7 June 2007 I believe a very large proportion of that 75% was Bates himself, so in effect he was voting to not pay himself in exchange for owning Leeds All sounds very dodgy business practice to me but that's the way it is these days business rules and global business dominates most governments. Am I right in thinking that before they went into admin, Bates owned 50% Leeds United whereas if this rescue deal goes through of his, he will own all of Leeds United for 1p in the pound debt repayment?
davieG Posted 7 June 2007 Posted 7 June 2007 Am I right in thinking that before they went into admin, Bates owned 50% Leeds United whereas if this rescue deal goes through of his, he will own all of Leeds United for 1p in the pound debt repayment? I think that's about the size of it give or take a penny or two.
Phube Posted 7 June 2007 Posted 7 June 2007 Seeing as he just needed 75%, and got it, it seems as though she's throwing good money after bad. I believe a very large proportion of that 75% was Bates himself, so in effect he was voting to not pay himself in exchange for owning Leeds All sounds very dodgy business practice to me but that's the way it is these days business rules and global business dominates most governments. This is why the minority are hopfully going to court as Bates had very significant input into a lot of the 75.2%, which they believe is dodgy. She don't really know the legal ins and outs of it though! Plus there were better offers on the table, one for 10p in the pound!
Blue Bob Posted 7 June 2007 Posted 7 June 2007 This is why the minority are hopfully going to court as Bates had very significant input into a lot of the 75.2%, which they believe is dodgy. She don't really know the legal ins and outs of it though! Plus there were better offers on the table, one for 10p in the pound! Sounds well dodgy, just glad we got Milan and not Bates. All I hope is that the courts refuse him permission to become a director.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.